- Joined
- Mar 5, 2014
- Messages
- 4,974
- Reaction score
- 1,047
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Should transwomen be legally treated as women?
The problem with your idea is that you have created this restrictive definition of what it means to be a woman merely to facilitate your ability to discriminate against a group of individuals whose behavior that you find repulsive. People do this for various reasons, amongst which are to protect some sort of egotistic position that they have, and some do it because they are fighting against something that they don't like in themselves. That is just to give examples.
No you are wrong. And it is because of your rather limited field of vision. The truth of the matter is that there is quite a bit that differentiates females from males. Some vans have seats that are designed to take passengers. Actually most of them are equipped in that way. However, there are some that are not meant to carry passengers at all, and don't have any seats for passengers. What you are doing is saying that the vans without seats for passengers are not really vans. That is not the case. It is just that although one function of vans is to transport passengers, they can be quite useful for far more than that. And that is what you are ignoring in this case.
No, I understand exactly what circular reasoning means, and your statement here reveals the distortion that is taking place in your thinking. I am going to say again why the reasoning is not circular, so please take note this time. The reason is that you can take the ovaries from a woman and she will still be a woman. Did you get that? I will say it again. You can take the ovaries from a woman and she will still be a woman. That is the crucial point. IF having ovaries was such a crucial aspect of being a woman, one should be able to take them away and the person would not longer be a woman. Again to give an example. If I say gasoline creates the energy that make a car run, then I should be able to observe that if there is no gasoline in the car, then the car would not run because there would be no energy. Indeed this is the case. No gas in the car, the car does not run. You are saying that having ovaries is what makes a woman, a woman. If that is the case, then we should be able to observe that taking a woman's ovaries away would result in her no longer being a woman. Since that is not true, your assessment is flawed. Over and above that, we observe that there are persons who are born without ovaries who feel are though they are women and behave as though they are women. Some of them do not even know that they don't have ovaries until they observe that they don't experience menstruation. AS A RESULT OF THESE TWO OBSERVATIONS, we can say that the condition of being a woman is indeed not restricted to having ovaries. THEREFORE THE REASONING IS NOT CIRCULAR, but is based upon observable facts.
The problem is that you are restricting the condition of being a woman to that of a person being born with ovaries. You are doing this because you want to create an exclusive barrier to facilitate your ability to discriminate against persons who have characteristics that for whatever reason you are uncomfortable with. I have broadly touched on some things that I felt are the defining characteristics of the experience of being a woman in this post:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/221321-should-transwomen-legally-treated-women-w-65-a-24.html#post1064513740
The problem with this idea is that men also do many important things and have important experiences that are centered on the notion of being a woman. The only things men can't do are related to reproductive function.
The problem with your idea is that you have created this restrictive definition of what it means to be a woman merely to facilitate your ability to discriminate against a group of individuals whose behavior that you find repulsive. People do this for various reasons, amongst which are to protect some sort of egotistic position that they have, and some do it because they are fighting against something that they don't like in themselves. That is just to give examples.
It is the one that is essential, the only thing unique to females. Your circular reasoning astounds me.
No you are wrong. And it is because of your rather limited field of vision. The truth of the matter is that there is quite a bit that differentiates females from males. Some vans have seats that are designed to take passengers. Actually most of them are equipped in that way. However, there are some that are not meant to carry passengers at all, and don't have any seats for passengers. What you are doing is saying that the vans without seats for passengers are not really vans. That is not the case. It is just that although one function of vans is to transport passengers, they can be quite useful for far more than that. And that is what you are ignoring in this case.
Lol I guess you might not understand what circular reasoning means. You are saying women aren't defined by ovaries because there are women without ovaries. The first part of your statement is only true because the second part says it is true. This isn't a fact, it's a definition, and not a very meaningful one.
No, I understand exactly what circular reasoning means, and your statement here reveals the distortion that is taking place in your thinking. I am going to say again why the reasoning is not circular, so please take note this time. The reason is that you can take the ovaries from a woman and she will still be a woman. Did you get that? I will say it again. You can take the ovaries from a woman and she will still be a woman. That is the crucial point. IF having ovaries was such a crucial aspect of being a woman, one should be able to take them away and the person would not longer be a woman. Again to give an example. If I say gasoline creates the energy that make a car run, then I should be able to observe that if there is no gasoline in the car, then the car would not run because there would be no energy. Indeed this is the case. No gas in the car, the car does not run. You are saying that having ovaries is what makes a woman, a woman. If that is the case, then we should be able to observe that taking a woman's ovaries away would result in her no longer being a woman. Since that is not true, your assessment is flawed. Over and above that, we observe that there are persons who are born without ovaries who feel are though they are women and behave as though they are women. Some of them do not even know that they don't have ovaries until they observe that they don't experience menstruation. AS A RESULT OF THESE TWO OBSERVATIONS, we can say that the condition of being a woman is indeed not restricted to having ovaries. THEREFORE THE REASONING IS NOT CIRCULAR, but is based upon observable facts.
I'm not limiting women to reproductive function, I'm determining sex by reproductive function. You can behave in any manner you want whether you have ovaries or not. By defining them some other way, you are the one limiting women to certain behaviors. What exactly determines whether a person is a male or female to you?
The problem is that you are restricting the condition of being a woman to that of a person being born with ovaries. You are doing this because you want to create an exclusive barrier to facilitate your ability to discriminate against persons who have characteristics that for whatever reason you are uncomfortable with. I have broadly touched on some things that I felt are the defining characteristics of the experience of being a woman in this post:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/221321-should-transwomen-legally-treated-women-w-65-a-24.html#post1064513740
Last edited: